In which situation does an attorney-in-fact violate their fiduciary duty?

An attorney-in-fact is someone appointed by another person (the principal) to act on their behalf in legal or financial matters. Fiduciary duty requires that the attorney-in-fact act in the best interests of the principal, maintaining loyalty, transparency, and accountability in their actions.

When examining the situation where an attorney-in-fact purchases the principal's property, this can be seen as a violation of fiduciary duty because it creates a conflict of interest. The attorney-in-fact is expected to represent the principal’s interests and make decisions that benefit them. By purchasing property from the principal, the attorney-in-fact may be prioritizing their own interests over those of the principal, leading to a breach of fiduciary duty, especially if the transaction is not made with full disclosure and fairness.

In contrast, other situations such as failing to disclose conflicts of interest or mismanaging the principal's funds also represent violations of fiduciary duty. However, purchasing property directly from the principal is particularly egregious since it involves a self-dealing situation and could raise questions of ethics and legality. Withholding sensitive information from the principal is also a violation, but it does not encompass the same level of direct self-interest as purchasing property. Thus, the scenario